@doG: Then my fellow primate...... I am sorry to say....... You are bat-shit crazy.
"Faith" is what we use when we have no evidence at all for a claim. There is nothing we can not believe based on faith. (I see no problem with hope, we can all hope. And statistically, we are winning, our voices are being heard.) But faith? Faith is the road to delusion. We must eat our bananas one at a time even if we think we are hungry enough to eat them all.

It's time here to explain the scientific position with respect to the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, and hopefully, clear out all the fallacies and canards once and for all.

First of all, because scientists only have one current model to work with, namely that of life observable on Earth, this is the only starting point that they have to use as a springboard. Which is openly and honestly accepted in the literature. Second, since that life observable on Earth is based upon a particular chemistry, a fact arising from a massive body of observational data, it makes sense to search for possible instances of that same chemistry occurring elsewhere. Starting with a search to see if appropriate molecules occur elsewhere.

Well, the data on that latter question is now in, and the answer is that the requisite molecules are pretty much ubiquitous throughout the universe. For example, the amino acid glycine has been detected in interstellar gas clouds, and laboratory experiments have determined a plausible synthesis route for glycine in those clouds from simpler precursors. There exists a large body of other similar data for a range of other molecules of interest. As a corollary, the idea that life resembling that on Earth, from the standpoint of the underlying chemistry, may be possible elsewhere in the universe, is supported by that data. But of course, just because life of the requisite sort is possible elsewhere, doesn't mean it's actually present, until we have the relevant observational data to hand.

Which is why Enceladus and Europa are being examined as potential venues for an extra-terrestrial life search.

The reasons for this choice are twofold. One, both bodies have provided observational data to the effect that they possess subsurface oceans comprised of liquid water, and a large part of the organic chemistry observed to underpin life on Earth, is chemistry that takes place in an aqueous medium. Two, data has been obtained in the case of Enceladus, that outflows from its subsurface ocean contain organic molecules of interest. Which is one of the reasons the Cassini probe was deliberately crashed into Saturn, in order to avoid contaminating Enceladus and potentially ruining a future life-search mission.

Now, there is a lot of work to be done, before the current data is augmented with any data pointing to actual life in those subsurface oceans. Numerous formidable technical hurdles have to be overcome, in order to design and implement a space mission that will provide substantive answers to the relevant questions, and even once those hurdles are overcome, those missions could still draw a blank, with respect to the existence of even the simplest indigenous microbial life. But that's why those missions are being proposed - to answer the question.

However, there are other interesting possibilities to consider. One being the presence of a functional prebiotic RNA world on one of those bodies, which, if discovered, would actually be more interesting in some quarters, than the presence of microbial life. Because a functioning prebiotic RNA world found on, say, Enceladus, would provide a massive boost to abiogenesis research covering the origin of life on Earth. I would actually consider a discovery of this nature to be more desirable for several reasons, than the discovery of indigenous microbial life. Of course, the 'jackpot' as far as I'm concerned, would be for one of those bodies to have an RNA world, and the other to have indigenous microbial life. That would, for me, be a reason to pop the champagne corks big time. But I'm also aware that this desire of mine stands a good chance of being utterly blown to pieces by whatever data that arrives from any future missions, and, although I'd be extremely pleased to have that 'jackpot' delivered to me by the data, I won't be unduly worried if it isn't. There are a range of other possibilities that could, if anything, make the hunt for extra-terrestrial life an even more interesting pursuit, because it alerts us to possibilities we didn't think of before the advent of those missions.That's part of the reason science is ultimately a huge amount of fun - finding something completely new and unexpected once one starts turning over the rocks.

Europa and Enceladus may not seem like obvious venues for an extra-terrestrial life search to the naive observer, but the data from space probes tells us that, despite said superficial appearances, they are actually the two best - and indeed only - opportunities on offer that are within our current investigative reach. As a consequence, they're worth examining on that basis, even if doing so is technically difficult and expensive. At the moment, we're still in the realm of "we don't know, but the preliminary data says it's worth looking", which has been the driving force behind every scientific advancement to date.

doG and Cognistic

There seems to be some confusion about 'Faith" and "HOPE". I am reading some misleading definitions about it in these threads.

(Cognistic) - "Faith" is what we use when we have no evidence at all for a claim......... (I see no problem with hope, we can all
hope................. But faith? Faith is the road to delusion."

Faith does not necessarily have anything to do with delusion. The only instance in which it can be construed as delusional is if you bring in the deity factor.
Hope on the other hand can be delusional because the expectation has yet to be met.

Do you have faith in your wife or do you only have hopes in her?
Do you have faith in your team or do you hope they will win?
Do you assign the work to someone you have faith in or someone you hope can do it?
Nothing wrong with faith.

Faith is normally used in the present tense and Hope is normally used for something that is yet to occur.

IMO seems like your definitions are faulty Cognistic. Dog has every right to have Faith in certain things or people without being deluded.

Example: I have FAITH that my hammer will hammer in the next 1000 nails on this job. (I have total trust in it now as it is)
Example: I HOPE my hammer will do the job. ( I am having doubts...waiting for the result)

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

FAITH: 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

HOPE: • 1A feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen.
1. 1.1count noun A person or thing that may help or save someone.
2. 1.2 Grounds for believing that something good may happen.

I have left out the 2nd definition of faith as pertaining to a deity because it is not needed to make my point.

InSpirit: MORE IDIOTIC BULLSHIT!!!
Do you have faith in your wife or do you only have hopes in her? "I hope she loves me." I am not a blind fucking idiot who assumes through faith that she loves me. I have evidence that she loves me by the evidence.

Do you have faith in your team or do you hope they will win? NO! Hebrews 11. Do you know how retarded your comments are., If you are going to redefine faith as "confidence" we already have the word "confidence" and do not need "FAITH"

Do you assign the work to someone you have faith in or someone you hope can do it? No! WTF don't you understand. I assign work to people based on their past performance and my understanding of their ability to do the assignment.

NOT ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES INVOLVES FAITH AS USED BY A THEIST. (HEBREWS II - 11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.)

LEARN TO READ!!!